With the news yesterday of the attempted arson of a legal highs store in Invercargill, it's reasonable to ask whether we're on the verge of public hysteria about synthetic cannabis. The next question would be why it's happening now, when 95% of retail outlets for such products have been either shut down or forbidden to to sell the products -- and those remaining are closely monitored and, for the first time, required to be strictly R18 premises.

The Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority, which administers the fledgling regime established under the Psychoactive Substances Act, has also not been shy about banning products deemed unsafe under its assessment guidelines. The entire JWH group of synthetic cannabinoids, which provided the psychoactive ingredients of most of the products that, before the Act, could be sold to kids from corner dairies, is now gone.

The list of products deemed low-risk and granted interim approval is a fraction of the nearly 300 legal highs sold in the past few years, before the new Act. It includes half a dozen fairly harmless pill products containing caffeine, guarana, kava, green tea and amino acids, and the rest is synthetic pot. When the full approval process gets underway, all of these will be banned subject to the Authority being satisfied that they present a low risk. It is quite possible that no products administered by smoking will meet the standard.

So, why now? Why now, when the prevalence of acute cases is reportedly beginning to fall? My guess is that we're reaping the harm of the years when the goverment was playing whack-a-mole, banning one substance after another without attempting to deal with the problem in the whole through regulation.

That certainly seems to be the case with 17 year-old Jesse Murray, whose tragic story has unfolded in the past week in The Press and other Fairfax papers. He and his mother say he has been smoking synthetic cannabis since he was 14 and he is now clearly addicted. But here's the thing I just can't process about that story:

His days are dictated by the opening and closing hours of the nearest legal high shop.

If he has the money, he will hand over anything between $25 and $80 a day - money he has begged for.

Despite it being illegal for him to purchase the drug because of his age, sometimes, out of sympathy, the storekeepers give it to him for free.

Let's be very clear here: whether they are selling Jesse synthetic pot or giving it to him for free, these storekeepers are breaking the law. The police should be informed and the owners' licence to trade revoked forthwith. Why on earth has The Press published three stories about Jesse but not identified the shops supplying him? Why is The Press sheltering criminals?

I'm not sure by what mechanism the currently available products might be directly causing the stomach bleeding reported by Jesse, but the Authority has already banned products found to be associated with "nausea and vomiting, insomnia, acute psychotic reaction, and prolonged withdrawal". If there are still products on sale that cause such harm, they need to be reported.

It's possible that the real damage was done to Jesse before the new regime, but that doesn't help with his withdrawal problems. Most people use these products without significant problems, but it does appear that some of them more than others cause addiction and other problems. The Wikipedia article on synthetic cannabis notes that the synthetic cannabinoids are full agonists to the cannabinoid receptors in the brain, by contrast with THC, the chief active ingredient in marijuana, which is only a partial agonist -- and the belief that this is the key to severe adverse effects, including toxicity. The absence of cannibdiol (CBD), another cannabinoid found in marijuana, which has demonstrated anti-psychotic effects, may also be a factor.

You might think in light of that, that we're regulating the wrong thing -- that cannabis itself should be subject to the same strict regulation in the place of these new substances. You may well be right, and you might be surprised to find how many MPs are thinking the same thing, but the politics are such that it simply was not possible to apply the new Act to any drug currently illegal under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

I do think that will happen, and that it might not be that long coming, but it won't be until after the Psychoactive Substances Act is fully up and running and has proved its fitness.

Meanwhile, in the illicit sector, we're seeing the same problems that prompted the pasage of the Act. LSD has been made too difficult to manufacture or supply -- so its place in the market has been taken by the NBOMe class of drugs, which are being sold in New Zealand as "liquid LSD". Users don't know what they're getting and, more importantly, how much. The NBOMe drugs have a scary dose-response curve, doses are almost microscopic and some toxic overdoses are being recorded. This keeps happening. That's why we're trying a different approach.

We're at an awkward stage with a legislative approach that is being watched around the world. This is something worth doing. And I hope that the news media can take a balanced approach to what's happening, and that local authorities do what is required of them under the law. Because failure would take us right back to square one.

121 responses to this post

1. You recently attended a United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs Meeting, Vienna, Austria and spoke about New Psychoactive Substances. What reaction did you get in Vienna about New Zealand's Psychoactive Substances Act?

The response was positive and interested. I had separate meetings with the European Union, the Dutch, the British, the Americans the Australians and the head of the UN Commission where our legislation was the major topic. All are watching to learn from us, most we believe we are on the right track.

2. Are you happy with how the implementation of the Act is progressing?

I am very frustrated by the lack of response from local government. Only 5 of 71 Councils have so far prepared their local policies. Their tardiness is the major reason for the current public controversy.

3. Was the relationship between cannabis use and synthetic substitutes discussed, especially the effects of cannabis being illegal encouraging drug users to use legal but unknown drugs?

There was not much discussion about cannabis in Vienna, other than general confirmation that there should be no legal relaxation.

4. How are other countries dealing with the cannabis/legal high issues?

Many are applying bans, although all acknowledge that they are ineffective and merely drive things underground. That is why most are looking at what we are doing. In general, they seem to be about we were 2 to 3 years ago in this debate.

5. Is anything being done in New Zealand or being considered to being done about the claimed anomaly between far better known and claimed less harmful cannabis use remaining illegal while synthetic drugs are given approval to be sold.

In a word, no.

6. What are the chances of New Zealand's laws relating to cannabis being reviewed in the next three years.

Zero I think.

7. Now your Psychotic Substances Act has been successfully introduced and is being implemented do you have any plans for or do you want to try and address cannabis or any other recreational psychotic drug issues?

It is my personal view that is possible that in the future the regulated market approach could be applied to cannabis, but that is not a priority. In any case, all the pharmacological and toxicologist and international advice I receive strongly suggests cannabis would fail the low risk test.

Thanks for that Pete. Given the momentum in other parts of the world, I do think cannabis regulation might be closer than the minister indicates. I've spoken to an advocate who's had private conversations with a number of MPs who seem to see the contradictions in in the Misuse of Drugs Act being off-limits.

the agonist and the ecstasy...Listening to Dunne on Nine to Noon this morning, I was depressed to hear him attempt to put the blame on local councils for not picking up the slack he has created...He shows precious little responsibility!

The responsible adults ostensibly in charge should be doing more work on the social causes of the need to self medicate, meanwhile they seem to be ignoring the symptoms as well...

Recently I had a chance to look at one of those synthetic product bags, it seemed to be full of twigs and sticks as well as some kind of leafy material, is this so it emulates the classic 'baggie'?Surely smoking wood can't be good for humans - do the manufacturers have anything to say about that?

I am so tiered of the OTT reaction coming from all sorts of people who should know better.

It is ironic that it is Peter Dunn that is bringing sensible drug laws to NZ. If it does work out (and it is working well so far, despite the OTT BS from many who should know better) even Peter Dunn himself acknowledges that cannabis will go through this process.

In my town, the council recently published draft guidelines on where legal highs could be sold. The law prohibits them being sold in any dairies, service stations, or anywhere liquor can be sold. The council had also decided that it would be the main street only and nowhere within 50m of a community facility (e.g. the town hall, childcare centre, community house). So with all those restrictions, it left only a gift shop and a sewing machine repair business that could legally sell legal highs. And I don't think either have any interest in doing so.

If councils are so worried about it, why don''t they open their own outlet to sell it responsibly and shut down the other stores? As I understand it, as long as you have somewhere to go to buy the stuff, the council is complying with the law.

But there seems to be no political will to address it apart from the ALCP. The Greens seen lukewarm at best, it doesn't fit with their marketing strategy. Cunliffe says Labour won't decriminalise. No sign of anything from National on it. Winston and the rest aren't likely to do anything.

So we have momentum around the world, we have growing acknowledgement that things aren't working here as they are but no sign of any change.

Would this be a good issue to be driven non-partisan by the blogosphere?

excellent blog - demonstrates exactly what the media refuses to provide - rational EVIDENCE-based info instead of kneejerk ,moral-panic gibberish. I continue to be gobsmacked that we can mass-produce so many uni / polytech grads in this country & yet demonstrate a complete failure to engage with this issue [ie. drug policy the wider issue] withany degree of acumen or honesty - Russell over the years is an exception to this. Investigative journalism in this arena is a joke - AWOL ! The blatant & appalling double-standard vis-à-vis alchohol as opposed to various other relatively low harm [ but criminalised ] psychoactives is beyond ridiculous.

Hahaha snap. I’ve been watching this moral panic develop since 2010. It follows the same pattern that LSD and ecstasy, and before that cannabis, did. Post I made this morning about it:

tatjna.livejournal.com/966042.html

Yikes. Some of the quotes in those stories are pretty bizarre. “Synthetic heroin”? What shops exactly are selling that?

And this:

Labour Party Invercargill candidate Lesley Soper spoke at the protest. People had a right to be angry with the Government after it rushed through a piece of legislation allowing legal highs to be sold in the communities, she said.

Does Soper really not know that these things have been “sold in communities” for the past decade and this this legislation sharply curtails the ability for that to happen? And does she not realise her own party voted for the bill?

I think the "knee jerk " reactions the Media at large tend to serve the opposition Parties could be cause to not engage in healthy debate. Brash showed that to his and Act's detriment. I will hope that it is simmering until after the Election and then maybe a member's bill could come forward. We live in times of anything happening (Tau announced his retirement today!)Keep up your good work there Pete I appreciate it.Can I just say, the young guy in the news on the legal highs, now dealing with retribution (but cant find that) is imo crying out for help. His initial story said help. People with addiction actually want to give up many times but often have noone to tell them "I'll help you, you can do it" The stopping can be the easy part . What one replaces it with can be the hardest part. You need to change friends ,environment, work. It is a bigger head shift than often assumed. " Just go to rehab" isn't the complete answer. One really needs support that sticks with them. Rehabs have buddies for this purpose as does AA but just one close friend who is always close, inclusive, is hard to find.You have probably alienated all of those who cared. Even more so in co dependant relationships Confidence is way down the rabbit hole and if we look closely, the drugs and alcohol help disguise that, so coming out the flip side requires getting that back ten fold. Back to where you were at the beginning is just that ,the beginning again......

I've contacted Peter Dunne's office for detail on what he said this morning about acute presentations falling since the Act came into force. They seem happy to help, so hopefully I'll have that information before too long. I'll also contact CARM, who do the official adverse response reporting.